Soft on guns?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Reagan?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/10/08/republicans-didnt-always-march-to-the-national-rifle-associations-drum/?referer=

[homersapien 11,812]

Blasphemy!!

[AURaptor 1,137]

One lawmaker who dropped his opposition, Representative Michael Andrews, a Democrat and hunter from Texas, declared, “Anyone that needs a 20-round clip of high-velocity ammunition to fell a duck or deer needs to look into taking up golf.”

Never was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the writer of this OPINION piece should know it. Hell, everyone should know it.

[homersapien 11,812]

One lawmaker who dropped his opposition, Representative Michael Andrews, a Democrat and hunter from Texas, declared, “Anyone that needs a 20-round clip of high-velocity ammunition to fell a duck or deer needs to look into taking up golf.”

Never was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the writer of this OPINION piece should know it. Hell, everyone should know it.

I agree.

But then, the amendment was created before the US created a regular national army. The military need for an armed civilian para-military no longer exists, much less millions of random owners possessing military grade weaponry. It should be revised. Original intent has little meaning when the conditions creating that intent no longer exist.

Having said that, There is plenty of room in the current wording to enact reasonable restrictions. Reagan believed that, as do I.

[AURaptor 1,137]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

[AUUSN 823]

NSFW

[TexasTiger 13,556]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

So are you with Reagan or against him.

[AURaptor 1,137]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

So are you with Reagan or against him.

For him, obviously.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." - Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

So are you with Reagan or against him.

For him, obviously.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." - Ronald Wilson Reagan.

So you agree with banning assault weapons?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sure. Ban assault weapons for criminals. Absolutely

[homersapien 11,812]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

I didn't say that. Only an idiot or a weasel would make such misinterpretation. Or maybe an idiot weasel.

I said the amendment was formulated prior to having an army, thus making provisions for a "well regulated militia" essential. That provides context to the intent, which no doubt is way too sophisticated a concept for you.

So your "message" is either from a lack of 'band width' or weasel-lying. Or probably both.

[homersapien 11,812]

You're still not getting it, homer.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about " keeping a standing army ". It was about letting the people have the power ( in this case guns ) in their hands, and not the govt.

My god, how many times must this message be repeated before you understand ?

So are you with Reagan or against him.

For him, obviously.

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." - Ronald Wilson Reagan.

You're really skipping around throwing straw. No one has said anything about "disarming law abiding citizens".

Another weasel-lie.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Sure. Ban assault weapons for criminals. Absolutely

So you sell to this guy since he had a clean criminal record?

[cooltigger21 0]

If we'd actually do something to the ones that commit crimes with guns and to the ones who help them we would do a hell of a lot better. Doing something about radical Islam would be a hell of a lot more productive than so called assault weapons bans.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sure. Ban assault weapons for criminals. Absolutely

So you sell to this guy since he had a clean criminal record?

It's a moot point. He was sold guns. Problem is, he also went through an FBI investigation, and 2 interviews, AFTER warnings by his co-workers had been raised.

Ask the FBI as to why he was permitted to still buy / own guns.

[cooltigger21 0]

Sure. Ban assault weapons for criminals. Absolutely

So you sell to this guy since he had a clean criminal record?

It's a moot point. He was sold guns. Problem is, he also went through an FBI investigation, and 2 interviews, AFTER warnings by his co-workers had been raised.

Ask the FBI as to why he was permitted to still buy / own guns.

He was a Muslim and we must not profile them. We must be politically correct. Now Christian white males we can do whatever we want to them. They're the scourge of the earth.

[homersapien 11,812]

Sure. Ban assault weapons for criminals. Absolutely

So you sell to this guy since he had a clean criminal record?

It's a moot point. He was sold guns. Problem is, he also went through an FBI investigation, and 2 interviews, AFTER warnings by his co-workers had been raised.

Ask the FBI as to why he was permitted to still buy / own guns.

He was a Muslim and we must not profile them. We must be politically correct. Now Christian white males we can do whatever we want to them. They're the scourge of the earth.

Pathetic

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

If this discussion is about whether or not to ban what some refer to as assault weapons, there are some basic questions that have to be answered. First, just exactly which rifles are assault weapons? Are you talking about ANY semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine? Are there only certain calibers that would be considered assault weapons? Quite frankly, just about any modern semi-auto rifle can fire at the same rate as an AR15. So do we ban ALL semi-auto rifles? If not, how do you decide which ones are out? You can buy a WWII type .30 caliber carbine for around the same price as an AR15 and it will wreak as much havoc at close range as an AR. Do we go back to the ridiculous standards that were in the Brady assault weapons ban? We all know from that experience that those standards were totally ineffective. If the AR15, or other semi-autos are banned, there will be other rifles to take their place. If there are no assault weapons available, those intent on murderous rampages will find another way to do it. The Boston Marathon bombers used pressure cookers and nails.The two boys who shot up Columbine High School, also had propane tanks rigged to blow things up. Hell, you can take a .22 caliber rifle with high velocity ammo and kill just as many people as any assault rifle (which doesn't exist in the civilian market) If someone is willing to die to commit a heinous crime, there isn't a lot you can do unless you are armed and willing to possibly sacrifice your own life to do it. Gun bans don't work (Paris, Brussels). You have to address the motivation behind the attacks to have any real effect on these mass shootings.

[AURaptor 1,137]

<p>

Pathetic

Is it ?

Homeland Security Classifies Returning US Veterans as Potential Terrorist Threat

the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

Is it ? Really? Because everything our govt warned about radicalized lone wolf attackers was said about our own soldiers, and not the militant Islamists.

San Bernadino, Ft Hood, Boston, Orlando...

[homersapien 11,812]

<p>

Pathetic

Is it ?

Homeland Security Classifies Returning US Veterans as Potential Terrorist Threat

the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks

Is it ? Really? Because everything our govt warned about radicalized lone wolf attackers was said about our own soldiers, and not the militant Islamists.

San Bernadino, Ft Hood, Boston, Orlando...

Only weasels quote someone while replacing the original premise with something else.

It's weasel-lying.